Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mainstream News Discovers D&D's Species Terminology Change
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Honorable Intent" data-source="post: 9549600" data-attributes="member: 7049161"><p>Apologies on the skills, I completely forgot 4e made that change as well. I know that Pathfinder consolidated others as well in the variant, but I didn't have the time to look into those skills at the time. However, I'm not sure I'd call Epic Destiny capstones really equivalent. They tend to be a lot more generic than the specifically class-based capstones of PF1e.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, so, I called it lazy design and then also have other examples of lazy design. I hoped that context would be enough, but to further clarify, basically I was evoking a similar point to Corinnguard. The change to Species from Race is one with no mechanical difference; ergo, the laziest way to solve the problem (take the label off, stick a new one on, call it good).</p><p></p><p>By comparison, in PF2e, Paizo made a change from Race to Ancestry. When they did so, they evaluated the mechanics and made the change fit by adjusting them and designing them around the new name; it feels like your Ancestry and Lineage aren't just called that because the names were pulled out of a hat to offend the minimum number of people, but because they were a better way to evoke the feelings Paizo wanted from their playable critters while also respecting that "Race" is a charged term that deserved the axe it got. </p><p></p><p>Similarly, the change in TCoE to "pick whatever attributes you want" was lazy design. Actually, to call it that would be too kind. It wasn't design. It was saying, "you can do whatever you want," and not providing any actual mechanical rules or anything. By comparison, the shift of attributes to Backgrounds is a much more interesting mechanical solution, and one that actually <em>has</em> a mechanical solution. The space in TCoE was essentially wasted, because telling DMs that they can handwave and DM fiat things is not providing rules and options to players or DMs, it's just padding the word count in your splatbook.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Honorable Intent, post: 9549600, member: 7049161"] Apologies on the skills, I completely forgot 4e made that change as well. I know that Pathfinder consolidated others as well in the variant, but I didn't have the time to look into those skills at the time. However, I'm not sure I'd call Epic Destiny capstones really equivalent. They tend to be a lot more generic than the specifically class-based capstones of PF1e. Yeah, so, I called it lazy design and then also have other examples of lazy design. I hoped that context would be enough, but to further clarify, basically I was evoking a similar point to Corinnguard. The change to Species from Race is one with no mechanical difference; ergo, the laziest way to solve the problem (take the label off, stick a new one on, call it good). By comparison, in PF2e, Paizo made a change from Race to Ancestry. When they did so, they evaluated the mechanics and made the change fit by adjusting them and designing them around the new name; it feels like your Ancestry and Lineage aren't just called that because the names were pulled out of a hat to offend the minimum number of people, but because they were a better way to evoke the feelings Paizo wanted from their playable critters while also respecting that "Race" is a charged term that deserved the axe it got. Similarly, the change in TCoE to "pick whatever attributes you want" was lazy design. Actually, to call it that would be too kind. It wasn't design. It was saying, "you can do whatever you want," and not providing any actual mechanical rules or anything. By comparison, the shift of attributes to Backgrounds is a much more interesting mechanical solution, and one that actually [I]has[/I] a mechanical solution. The space in TCoE was essentially wasted, because telling DMs that they can handwave and DM fiat things is not providing rules and options to players or DMs, it's just padding the word count in your splatbook. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mainstream News Discovers D&D's Species Terminology Change
Top